State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
New India Assurance Company Limited vs Harish Kumar (Deceased) on 27 November, 2013
IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision:27.11.2013 First Appeal No.522/2007 (Arising out of Order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum(North) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Complaint Case No.476/2006) 1. New India Assurance . Appellant /Opposite Party Company Ltd., through Mr. Rajbir Singh, No.87, Mahatma Gandhi advocate. Road Fort, Mumbai 2. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Atlas Road, Sonepat, Haryana 3. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., DRO-II, Legal Department, Scope Minar, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi Versus Sh. Harish Kumar (Deceased) . Respondent/Complainant. Through his legal heir Smt. Anita Wd/o Late Sh. Harish Kumar R/o House No.557, Pana Udyan Narela, Delhi -110040 CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi President Ms. Salma Noor Member
Sh. N P Kaushik Member (Judicial)
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Sh. N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)
1. Appellants have impugned the order dated 04.01.2007 passed by District Forum(North) vide which the appellants were directed to pay to the respondent herein an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his claim besides a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and costs of litigation of Rs.5000/-.
2. Respondent herein had filed a complaint alleging that his shop stood insured under Shopkeepers Insurance Policy vide cover note bearing No.208877 dated 16.08.2002. The policy covers risk of fire and burglary. On 19.07.2003, a dacoity took place at his shop and he suffered loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The respondent also filed an FIR No.259/2003 under section 3223/342/447/379/34 IPC at Police Station Narela. The version of the appellants before the District Forum was that it had appointed a surveyor to assess loss suffered by the respondent and despite repeated requests he did not furnish the necessary documents/information. Surveyor recommended the claim as No claim. Appellants also submitted that the respondent had lodged a false report with the police.
3. Present appeal has been filed on the grounds inter-alia that no evidence was led by the respondent in support of his claim; that the District Forum ignored the evidence led by the appellants; that the respondent did not cooperate with the surveyor and failed to supply him the necessary documents required for assessing the loss.
4. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant Sh. Rajbir Singh, advocate argued on the sole ground that the respondent did not provide the necessary documents to the surveyor. A perusal of the record shows that the same stand was taken by the appellant before the District Forum. The appellants have failed to indicate the nature of the documents asked for by the surveyor from the respondents. On the contrary respondent has filed all the relevant documents in the Police Station while getting the FIR lodged. He also filed all such documents before the District Forum.
5. It is not the case of the appellants that the surveyor ever served upon the respondent a notice calling him upon to furnish any particular document(s). Plea thus raised by the appellants is highly vague and is of no avail to him. For these reasons we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is hence dismissed.
6. A copy of this order be provided to the parties as per rules and a copy of this order be sent to District Forum for information. File be consigned to Record room.
7. FDR if any deposited by the appellant be released in favour of the appellant after obtaining proper receipt and identification.
Announced on 27th day of November, 2013.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member (N P Kaushik) Member (Judicial) Tri